BNO vs. ACVT

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) and ACVT (Advent Convertible Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures, while ACVT is a Convertible Bonds fund actively managed by Advent. BNO is passively managed, while ACVT is actively managed. Over the past year, BNO returned 54.59% vs 9.33% for ACVT. Their -0.22 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BNO charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ACVT.

Performance

BNO vs. ACVT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) and Advent Convertible Bond ETF (ACVT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BNO achieves a 68.89% return, which is significantly higher than ACVT's 6.40% return.

BNO

• 1D: -5.06%
• 1M: 20.57%
• 6M: 52.91%
• YTD: 68.89%
• 1Y: 54.59%
• 3Y*: 17.84%
• 5Y*: 21.29%
• 10Y*: 13.80%
• ALL TIME*: 3.97%

ACVT

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 0.09%
• 6M: 5.71%
• YTD: 6.40%
• 1Y: 9.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.70%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACVT Advent Convertible Bond ETF	$1.71K	$2.25K	$23.03K
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	$109.23M	$101.30M	$143.17M

BNO vs. ACVT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	68.89%	5.83%
ACVT Advent Convertible Bond ETF	6.40%	8.04%

Correlation

The correlation between BNO and ACVT is -0.26, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 30, 2025	-0.22

Return for Risk

BNO vs. ACVT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 47
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 49
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 43

ACVT

ACVT Risk / Return Rank: 57
ACVT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
ACVT Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
ACVT Omega Ratio Rank: 57
ACVT Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
ACVT Martin Ratio Rank: 54

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BNO vs. ACVT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) and Advent Convertible Bond ETF (ACVT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BNO	ACVT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	1.58	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	2.33	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.28	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.59	1.95	-0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.81	6.93	-2.13

BNO vs. ACVT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BNO Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is comparable to the ACVT Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BNO and ACVT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BNO vs. ACVT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BNO drawdown since its inception was -87.06%, which is greater than ACVT's maximum drawdown of -4.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNO and ACVT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BNO	ACVT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.06%	-4.81%	-82.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.46%	-4.81%	-29.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-75.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.46%	-0.02%	-20.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.99%	-0.81%	-39.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.41%	1.35%	+10.06%

Volatility

BNO vs. ACVT - Volatility Comparison

United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a higher volatility of 18.59% compared to Advent Convertible Bond ETF (ACVT) at 1.60%. This indicates that BNO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACVT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BNO	ACVT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.59%	1.60%	+16.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.33%	4.82%	+36.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.80%	5.93%	+38.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.47%	5.77%	+30.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.01%	5.77%	+31.24%

BNO vs. ACVT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BNO has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than ACVT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

BNO vs. ACVT - Dividend Comparison

BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACVT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%.

Position	TTM	2025
ACVT Advent Convertible Bond ETF	1.53%	1.19%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BNO and ACVT in my portfolio?

BNO and ACVT have a correlation of -0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BNO or ACVT?

BNO has higher volatility (18.59%) compared to ACVT (1.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BNO dropped -87.06% vs ACVT's -4.81%.

Which ETF is better, BNO or ACVT?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 54.59% vs 9.33% for ACVT. On fees, ACVT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ACVT has been the lower-risk option at 1.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BNO or ACVT?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 54.59% return vs 9.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BNO or ACVT?

ACVT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BNO or ACVT?

ACVT has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

What is the main difference between BNO and ACVT?

BNO is categorized as Oil & Gas, while ACVT is Convertible Bonds. They also come from different issuers: USCF and Advent. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for BNO and 0.65% for ACVT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACVT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.58 vs 1.23), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.